Are plans in place if schools attacked?
Are plans in place if schools attacked?

It really was a mandate. Although the margin was tight in several critical states, Bush won by about 3,500,000 votes overall or around 3% of all votes cast. Now here's something to consider.
| According to Michael Crane, author of The Political Junkie Handbook, President re-elect, George W. Bush, increased his standing among the following groups of people – by anywhere from one to seven percentage points – when compared to the respective levels of support he received from them, back in the year-2000 election:
1) Women, 2) Men, 3) Blacks, 4) Whites, 5) Hispanics, 6) Married people, 7) Unmarried people, 8) Catholics, 9) Jews, 10) 30-44 year-olds, 11) 45-59 year-olds, 12) 60 year-olds and up, 13) Union members, 14) Gun owners, 15) Democrats, and 16) Republicans. Hmm. |
The Backseat Philosopher, courtesy InstaPundit:
| Many Democrats think that our patience and understanding are our weakness. "We don't know how to fight like the Republicans," we all told ourselves after Florida 2000. "We have to be more like them: tougher, meaner." "We have to energize our base more."
Actually, no. Our error is that we Democrats actually are far less understanding than we think we are. Our version of understanding the other side is to look at them from a psychological point of view while being completely unwilling to take their arguments seriously. "Well, he can't help himself, he's a right-wing religious zealot, so of course he's going to think like that." "Republicans who never served in war are hypocrites to send young men to die. " "Republicans are homophobes, probably because they can't deal with their secret desires." Anything but actually listening and responding to the arguments being made. And when I say 'responding,' I don't just mean 'coming up with the best counterargument and pushing it.' Sometimes responding to an argument means finding the merit in it and possibly changing one's position. That is part of growth, right? |
| ...I voted for Bush because his political policies are most like my own. I voted for Bush in rejection of the corruption of the elite media. I voted for Bush in rejection of the vast corruption in the UN. I voted for Bush in rejection of fashionable politics with no substance. I voted for Bush because there is a time for diplomacy and he understands when that is.
Shante' Fosket, Chesapeake, VA... ...I voted for President Bush because I refuse to be associated with a candidate or party that openly welcomes Michael Moore. I was actually leaning toward Kerry until Fahrenheit 911 was released. That heinous, hate filled movie and the fact that many in the Democratic Party and the Hollywood elite actually promoted it as the truth turned me. As a 911 survivor, it insulted my intelligence and the memory of all my friends, neighbours, and colleagues who perished at the hands of criminals. Rob, Madison, NJ, USA... ...I voted for Bush because I would never vote to put a Democrat in the White House when we are at war, their track record in that department being reprehensible. I voted for Bush because for the first time in my lifetime, we have a President who does what he says he is going to do, and in the end, I voted for Bush because I trust him. Warren Jorgensen, New York, USA... ..I voted for President Bush because I see all the crisis level issues as originating from the leadership of the Democrat Party. President Johnson's opening of the SSI trust fund to borrow to fund his Camelot dream has ultimately threatened our economy by encouraging debt spending (no politician fails to spend what's available) and threatened the stability of the retirement system itself. Carter's decision to de-emphasize human intelligence and rely instead upon electronic intelligence has threatened our security. Clinton's decision to first take human rights out of China's MFN review process and then make the newly-renamed NTR status permanent for China lost high-paying manufacturing jobs to prison labour overseas. Every succeeding president has followed these policies, but the short-sighted polices themselves all have Democrat signatures putting them in place. We just can't afford another Democrat president and their feel-good record of implementing short-sighted, permanent national policy. Leo, Buffalo, USA |

Kerry Strategist and Commentator Paul Begala on CNN 11/3 (PM):
| BEGALA: Wha... Theh... Deh... Weh... They got beat! No, they were right to try to get new voters in as well, but they just got out, uh, out-hustled, out-organized, out-whatever, out-motivated by the Bush staff. I mean, Kerry's job was to motivate Democrats and to persuade independents. He did that. But the president just simply did a better job at his game, and I think that you got to give the president credit for that. He raised issues in the right way. He found those folks; he motivated them. He got them out to vote, and now's got, you know, now he has a real mandate. I spent four years saying that he "wasn't fully legitimate." He's fully legitimate now, and he's got a majority of the vote in a high-turnout election. There's nothing more legitimating than that. |
| BEGALA: At election time he does good job of revving up these divisions, ehh, eee, uhh... attacking gay rights and suggesting maybe they're going to limit abortion rights. Let's put him to the test now. He's got the House. He's got the Senate. He's obviously got the White House. Let's see him speak out, eeeh, if he thinks abortion really is murder? Fine, let's put cops in hospitals, Mr. President. Let's ban abortion. You know, you think that gay rights is wrong? Fine, let's outlaw being gay the way Texas did for many years in years and start locking up the homosexuals. You know, the truth is he won't do any of that because this is all just a cynical ploy to manipulate good people with strong values and to use their votes and get them at the election. Then he's going to go back to his big-business agenda. You watch. |
From the Media Research Center comes this interesting list. It won't take a lot of mental gymnastics to guess who's #1. Read the whole thing.
| The internals of the Washington Post/ABC News Poll - I have just learned the following about this poll:
President Bush is only .2 from the 50% mark in the poll. Undecided voters favor the President 47%-36%. Among union voters, Kerry’s support is less than the Democratic candidate’s support in 2000. This bodes very well for the President in the Midwest and Pennsylvania. |
Did you know that Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-CO) recently visited Beslan to deliver messages of support from his constituents (Columbine High School included)? Probably not, as the story was completely ignored by the mainstream media. His blog is heart-rending and describes exactly what we can expect from Islamic Extremists in this country: attacks on the innocent, even schoolchildren, anywhere, anytime. Even in a rural community in the middle of nowhere. Like Beslan.
| ...Sunday Afternoon – Hospital Visit in Moscow
Today was hard, tomorrow will be harder. Today we visited two hospitals in Moscow where many of the survivors were being treated after being triaged out of Beslan. Room after room is filled with children with their broken bodies and damaged minds. In every room there is a parent, aunt, brother or grandma keeping watch - waiting for the wounds to heal. In every room there is a story of heartbreak. In the first visit we meet a 16 year old boy who lies in very serious condition. This young man had the courage to grab the gun of a terrorist who had been shot and proceeded to kill another terrorist who was shooting at fleeing children. He then placed his body over a small girl for protection from the onslaught of bullets and shrapnel meant for her. In the next room, two sisters ages 8 and 10 lay in good spirits… It’s the 8 year olds birthday today, and my wife sings happy birthday to her in Russian. The little girl smiled, and lit up the room. Her aunt was sitting in the back of the room, and began to cry. I wish I could say the woman’s tears were for joy from the little girls smile. However they were tears because she knew of the pain yet awaiting both girls. They had lost both parents in the tragedy, but did not know it yet. It became more difficult as we made the move from room to room to hear the stories of these children’s bravery, and got to know these survivors and their families personally. We met the mother of a 12 year old girl who lies quietly as she unfolded a piece of gauze to show the ball bearing that the doctors took out of her daughters’ lung. Apparently the terrorists had packed the bombs with ball bearings to add to the shrapnel’s effect... |
It's always interesting when a New York Times op-ed not authored by Bill Safire pounds Kerry for his shifting opportunism. David Brooks groks what's really happening in the candidate's mind when it comes to the UBL tape.
| It's quite clear from the polls that most Americans fundamentally think Bush does get this. Last March, Americans preferred Bush over Kerry in fighting terrorism by 60 percent to 33 percent, according to the Gallup Poll. Now, after a furious campaign and months of criticism, that number is unchanged. Bush is untouched on this issue.
Bush's response yesterday to the video was exactly right. He said we would not be intimidated. He tried to take the video out of the realm of crass politics by mentioning Kerry by name and assuring the country that he was sure Kerry agreed with him. Kerry did say that we are all united in the fight against bin Laden, but he just couldn't help himself. His first instinct was to get political. On Milwaukee television, he used the video as an occasion to attack the president... ...Even in this shocking moment, this echo of Sept. 11, Kerry saw his political opportunities and he took 'em. There's such a thing as being so nakedly ambitious that you offend the people you hope to impress. But politics has shaped Kerry's approach to this whole issue. |
| ...It is important to notice what he has stopped saying in this speech. He has stopped talking about the restoration of the Global Caliphate. There is no more mention of the return of Andalusia. There is no more anticipation that Islam will sweep the world. He is no longer boasting that Americans run at the slightest wounds; that they are more cowardly than the Russians. He is not talking about future operations to swathe the world in fire but dwelling on past glories. He is basically saying if you leave us alone we will leave you alone. Though it is couched in his customary orbicular phraseology he is basically asking for time out.
The American answer to Osama's proposal will be given on Election Day. One response is to agree that the United States of America will henceforth act like Sweden, which is on track to become majority Islamic sometime after the middle of this century. The electorate best knows which candidate will serve this end; which candidate most promises to be European-like in attitude and they can choose that path with both eyes open. The electorate can strike that bargain and Osama may keep his word. The other course is to reject Osama's terms utterly; to recognize the pleading in his outwardly belligerent manner and reply that his fugitive existence; the loss of his sanctuaries; the annihilation of his men are but the merest foretaste of what is yet to come: to say that to enemies such as he, the initials 'US' will always mean Unconditional Surrender. Osama has stated his terms. He awaits America's answer. |
Once again, I'm shocked... SHOCKED... that the mainstream media hasn't effectively covered the latest information from the Pentago regarding the "missing" explosives.
| A U.S. Army officer came forward Friday to say a team from the 3rd Infantry Division took about 250 tons of munitions and other material from the Al-Qaqaa arms-storage facility soon after Saddam Hussein's regime fell in April 2003.
Maj. Austin Pearson said at a Pentagon news conference that he was tasked in the days after the fall of the Iraqi regime with a mission to secure and destroy ammunition and explosives. He led a 25-man team called Task Force Bullet... |
KerrySpot reports the following interesting news, reportedly from a senior-level campaign insider:
| FROM A SOURCE CLOSE TO THE CAMPAIGN [10/28 02:07 PM]
Just heard from a source close to the campaign, tuned in to the conversations at the highest levels. According to the Bushies, the last few days have seen a huge burst of momentum in their numbers. They think Bush is ahead by a few points nationally. They expect the next round of tracking polls to show a bit of a bump. The internal polls show a significant lead in Florida (outside margin of error) and Arkansas is out of play, with a Bill Clinton visit or without. As for most of the other big ones - Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, internal polls show all too close to call. Michigan is seriously looking like a pickup - Bush and Cheney could be there four times in the last four days. An exit poll of those who have already voted show Bush ahead by 15 points! [UPDATE: This is ahead 15 points overall, nationwide, not just in Michigan. Obviously, those who have already voted are only a small, small segment of the electorate at large, so one should not read too much into this number. But it is interesting.] Undecided voters appear to be breaking Bush’s way - some days he has a slight lead, other days it’s right around 50-50. (Note this would be considerably better than the 1/3 calculated that Bush needs here. Finally, the ammo dump story appears to have left the Kerry campaign deep in al-Qaqaa. Tommy Franks is going to enter this story and rip Kerry and the New York Times a new one. The Kerry folks are acting like they realized they have botched this story, and want to shift back to domestic topics. Lockhart, Bill Richardson on Imus — when asked about al-QaQaa, they dodge the question and quickly try to bring up other issues. The campaign is going to avoid the Russian angle and go with the straightforward, “As the facts mount in this story, American people have a choice between believing Kerry-NYTimes-CBS or believing Bush and the Troops.” This source close to the campaign didn’t say it, but I wonder if the Bush administration wants to deal with Russia in its own manner, and not have whatever diplomatic confrontations are going on behind the scenes complicated by a furious American electorate blaming Russia for hiding Iraq’s weapons and explosives. |
James Taranto has collected some... uhmmm... interesting Kerry endorsements (hat tip: PoliPundit):
| “I know few people enthused about John Kerry. His record is undistinguished, and where it stands out, mainly regrettable. He intuitively believes that if a problem exists, it is the government’s job to fix it. He has far too much faith in international institutions, like the corrupt and feckless United Nations, in the tasks of global management. He got the Cold War wrong. He got the first Gulf War wrong. His campaign’s constant and excruciating repositioning on the war against Saddam have been disconcerting, to say the least. I completely understand those who look at this man’s record and deduce that he is simply unfit to fight a war for our survival. They have an important point–about what we know historically of his character and his judgment when this country has faced dire enemies. His scars from the Vietnam War lasted too long and have gone too deep to believe that he has clearly overcome the syndrome that fears American power rather than understands how to wield it for good."–Andrew Sullivan, endorsing John Kerry, The New Republic, Oct. 26
“I can’t remember ever voting for anybody I disliked as much as I do John Kerry, at least not for president, but vote for him I will. I didn’t have much use for Al Gore either, but I don’t remember any real sense of hostility before punching the hole next to his name. . . . I can’t persuade anybody to vote for a candidate for whom I can muster so little enthusiasm, but there must be an awful lot of people out there who are going to cast votes next week for Kerry who are, like me, discouraged by the prospect and needing one of those you-are-not-alone talks."–Mark Brown, endorsing John Kerry, Chicago Sun-Times, Oct. 27 “I remain totally unimpressed by John Kerry. Outside of his opposition to the death penalty, I’ve never seen him demonstrate any real political courage. His baby steps in the direction of reform liberalism during the 1990s were all followed by hasty retreats. His Senate vote against the 1991 Gulf War demonstrates an instinctive aversion to the use of American force, even when it’s clearly justified. Kerry’s major policy proposals in this campaign range from implausible to ill-conceived. He has no real idea what to do differently in Iraq. His health-care plan costs too much to be practical and conflicts with his commitment to reducing the deficit. At a personal level, he strikes me as the kind of windbag that can only emerge when a naturally pompous and self-regarding person marinates for two decades inside the U.S. Senate. If elected, Kerry would probably be a mediocre, unloved president on the order of Jimmy Carter."–Jacob Weisberg, endorsing John Kerry, Slate, Oct. 26 |